“Specie is the most perfect medium because it will preserve its own level, because, having intrinsic and universal value, it can never die in our hands …” — Thomas Jefferson, “Letter to John Wayles Eppes,” 1813 —

For those who don’t follow Wyoming legislative or financial issues very closely, it was easy to miss the July 1 enactment of a recently-passed law, the “Wyoming Legal Tender Act” of 2018.

It won’t be so easy to miss that law’s implications, however; but, first, in order to set the table properly, a few short digressions into history are necessary:

■ Back in 1791 — with thanks mainly to the masterly, if completely misguided, maneuvering of Treasury Secretary Alexander Hamilton, who sought to place the finances of the new U.S. government onto a solidly national, government-controlled platform — Congress passed, and Washington signed, a bill authorizing the “First Bank of the United States.”

The reasons why Hamilton favored such an establishment are worth noting: To “establish financial order,” to “establish credit” and to “resolve the issue of the fiat currency.”

Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson, however, violently opposed its implementation, on the basis of its monopolization of federal financial power as well as its conflict with the soon-to-be-adopted Tenth Amendment to the Bill of Rights. These arguments did little to convince either Congress or the President at the time — but, by 1811, with the Bank’s charter up for a 20-year renewal, such thinking was in a much greater ascendancy and the Bank’s charter was nullified.

■ The second time the United States starting fooling around with national banks was in 1816, with the establishment of the “Second Bank of the United States,” and this time it took Andrew Jackson and his “Bank War” to get rid of it completely (by removing all its deposits in 1833).

Mercifully, the economy of the increasingly-industrialized United States was spared such a national disaster for decades to come — but, by 1913, a powerful bloc of federally-inclined political forces and interests was in the ascendancy instead, and we ended up with:

■ The “Federal Reserve Act” of 1913, which established a de-facto “third” bank of the United States, brought in the new “Federal Reserve Note” and removed all restrictions on “fractional” banking (set down to 10 percent, in this case).

■ And, finally, with the abandonment of the gold standard nationally with the “Gold Reserve Act” of 1934, the foundation was laid for an inflationary spiral to take place in the decades to come (a power President Roosevelt acted on immediately, devaluing the now-unchained “fiat” dollar from $20.67 to $35 for a troy ounce of gold, a loss of over 40 percent).

■ So, now, fast-forward to 2018, 84 years later, where gold is now $1,233 an ounce and goods routinely cost 10 or more times now what they did then (gas in 1934, 19 cents; in 2018, $2.49; a carton of Camel cigarettes in 1934, $1.20; in 2018, $52.46.)

■ We are now left with the wreckage of the “Third Bank of the United States” and its multi-decades long impact on our economy: A hijacked financial system now controlled by political and economically-“elite” interests; a worthless paper dollar, no longer backed by any kind of commodity, that threatens to descend into a hyperinflationary mode at any time; and credit bubbles, both personally and governmentally, whose deficits can only be counted in the tens — HUNDREDS — of trillions of dollars.

All of the problems, in other words, that these “national banks” were supposed to solve. In this case, I’d say the “cure” has been much worse than the disease.

Well, that mess isn’t going to get cleaned up overnight, if at all — complete financial insolvency on all of those levels is much more likely — but, as a small step in that direction, Wyoming’s new Legal Tender Act reverses two of those maladies:

■ “Specie,” i.e., “coin having gold or silver content,” as well as “refined gold or silver bullion,” is now considered as “legal tender,” which means: Gold and silver now qualify as “money” again, not just a commodity (9-4-1302).

■ And, being actual money, therefore, “the purchase, sale or exchange of any type or form of specie legal tender” shall no longer “give rise to any tax liability of any kind” (9-4-1304).

The way has now been paved, in other words, for REAL money to compete with the phony Federal Reserve Notes within state boundaries. And that, Dear Readers, is a significantly necessary first step toward ending the Fed’s money monopoly forever that we’ve been needing for a long, long time.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email: bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

Like this:

“When we raise our right arm and promise to protect and defend the Constitution, does that oath mean only as far as my supervisor or the Supreme Court allows me to? Or does the oath essentially bestow a responsibility on ME to know it, study it, cherish it and ultimately defend it even against a well-meaning but misdirected supervisor or judge?” — Former Graham County Sheriff Richard Mack, “The Proper Role of Law Enforcement,” 1999 —

“The Constitution’s structure reveals a principle that controls these cases: The system of ‘dual sovereignty.’ See, e. g., Gregory v. Ashcroft, 501 U. S. 452, 457. Although the States surrendered many of their powers to the new Federal Government, they retained a residuary and inviolable sovereignty that is reflected throughout the Constitution’s text. See, e. g., Lane County v. Oregon, 7 Wall. 71, 76. The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service — and at no cost to itself — the police officers of the 50 States. Pp. 918-922.”

Translation: The “CLEOs” for the “local jurisdictions” — i.e., the County Sheriffs — retained their roles as both the supreme CLEOs for their counties as well as the primary protector of their elector/citizens’ constitutional rights, and could not be impressed into federal service.

You’d never get a glimmer of that fact, however, looking at the Laramie County Sheriff’s Dept. — as current Sheriff Danny Glick routinely allows, abets and advocates gross infringements on citizens’ Constitutional (4th and 5th Amendment) rights through the practice of “civil asset forfeiture”:

“Glick says there is no reason to change the current law in Wyoming because it isn’t being abused,” the interview states. “We’re not breaking the law,” Glick said.

Remember, Dear Readers, just what it is that “civil asset forfeiture” means: It is the seizure of property, without “due process of law,” simply because police THINK it might be involved in illegal drug trading. No proof required, just a SUSPICION.

Since the Constitution is still supposedly the law of this land, however — and since you, Sheriff Glick, swore an oath to protect and defend it — I guess you’re “breaking the law” after all. Worse still, YOU are the man who’s supposed to be protecting that law.

But, for county voters who rebel against such repugnant unconstitutional practices as Sheriff Glick runs for re-election this year, there’s an alternative candidate available to vote for: Greg Taylor.

Taylor, an investigator and law enforcement officer himself, adheres to a much different view of the nature and responsibilities of the Sheriff’s office:

“As the only directly elected law enforcement officer in America, the Sheriff must exercise great care while upholding the Constitution of the United States and the State of Wyoming while applying all laws fairly and equitably.” (From Taylor’s “Greg Taylor for Laramie County Sheriff” Facebook page, 2018.)

Nor does Taylor mince any words when it comes to his motivations:

“There are many reasons I am running for Sheriff. First among them is to uphold the Constitutions of the United States and the State of Wyoming and apply all laws fairly and equally. Second is to create a better work environment for the dedicated and loyal employees of the Sheriff’s office who have endured long enough. Third is to be a working Sheriff, present and available, to the citizens of Laramie County and not off at conferences or running for national association offices that return no direct benefit to Laramie County.”

And that is certainly something Laramie County citizens have needed and deserved for years, but failed to receive from the current occupant of that honorable office. So, it looks like it’s high time we got ourselves “a new sheriff in town.”

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email:bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

Share this:

Like this:

This Cheyenne City Council meeting rant is a few years old now — the meeting in which I made these comments was actuallyheld on Sept. 10, 2012. Several of my friends, however, who are aware of it, have asked me to post this particular sequence — where I discuss the City of Cheyenne’s dependency upon county, state and federal dollars, and compare some of those figures to a “scaled-down” federal budget as interpreted from a “personal budget” point of view — onto my blog.

So, here it is … And NO, I am certainly not the most photogenic guy on the planet. I’ve always believed, though, that TRUTH matters more than appearances, so … Let ‘er roll!!

Like this:

“The only good bureaucrat is one with a pistol at his head. Put it in his hand and it’s goodbye to the Bill of Rights.” — H.L. Mencken, “On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe,” 1936 —

If ever there was a group of collectivist meddlers that warranted a serious spanking from the constituents they allegedly represent — and then got exactly what they had coming to them — it would be difficult to find a more deserving band of busybodies than Casper’s City Council.

And the problem? The codes call for a bevy of regulations governing everything you could ever hope to regulate regarding building structures. For a bit of flavor for the IPMC’s approach, consider aportion ofChapter 3, Section 304.2 (“Protective treatment”):

“Exterior surfaces, including but not limited to, doors, door and window frames, cornices, porches, trim, balconies, decks and fences, shall be maintained in good condition. Exterior wood surfaces, other than decay-resistant woods, shall be protected from the elements and decay by painting or other protective covering or treatment. Peeling, painting and chipped paint shall be eliminated and surfaces repainted.”

Non-compliance, by the way, results in repair costs imposed on property owners, as well as fines and misdemeanor charges.

But that’s just the beginning — for, underChapter 1, Section 104.3 (“Right of entry”), “ … the code official is authorized to enter the structure or premises at reasonable times to inspect or perform the duties imposed by this code …” … And that “if entry is refused, the code official shall have recourse to the remedies provided by law to secure entry.”

Translation: The police will show up and FORCE you to let the “code official” enter your dwelling. For “inspection.” WITHOUT a warrant. Whether you believe in your constitutional right to “be secure” in your “houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures” (4th Amendment) or not.

Well, Casper’s council snoops passed that first reading by a 5-4 vote — with the second reading scheduled for July 3.

Except that in between, a lot of Casper residents decided to show up to voice their opinions, and several dozen of them attended in order to tell the council what they thought of its creeping collectivism.

Opinions including, but not limited to:

Lisa Engebretsen: “I wasn’t aware that the city of Casper was in the HOA business — and this is what this is, it’s just a glorified HOA. I intentionally chose a home that is not in an HOA because I don’t want to be told what to do.”

Brian Windham: “I do not like the way governments pass laws that affect our homes and our children. I fought in the battles for this country; I served in our military. And I am humiliated and ashamed for it — because we lose more rights to people sitting in government seats than we’ve ever lost to a foreign enemy.”

Michelle Sabrosky: “Councilman Huber said that ‘we just want to keep our people safe’ … It’s not your job to keep me safe from myself, I’m sorry … When it comes to safety and security, Benjamin Franklin said that ‘those that give up essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither’ … My concern, when I read through these things, was not window screens and checking for mold … My concern is, once these people are in my house, what are they going to be looking for? … There was a man who ruled Germany, and he had people that went into other people’s houses looking for things. And I will be damned if I’m going to let somebody come into MY house and look for my guns and my ammunition, and start keeping tabs, so later down the road, somebody can come in and take it from me! And that is something that nobody ever considered when they decided to play Nancy Pelosi and vote on something they never read!”

Well, after a barrage like that, it didn’t take long for the council to make up its mind: The 2018 IPMC was ingloriously blown out of the sky, 8-0. And good riddance.

“We’re not communists or Nazis,” Councilman Dallas Laird had said at the beginning of the meeting. Maybe so Mr. Laird; but a few of your fellow councilors certainly gave those ideas a try — and, had it not been for the courageous people who called you all out on it, they would have gotten away with it.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email: bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

Like this:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.” — James Madison, “The Tenth Amendment of the Bill of Rights,” 1791 —

I evaluate political candidates according to one simple standard: Their commitment to the principles of individual liberty. And, when it comes to the Wyoming Governor’s race, there’s only one candidate worth talking about in that regard: Taylor Haynes.

I’ve already discussed just a few of the problems with the other five candidates vying for the Republican gubernatorial nomination — positional inconsistencies, slopping at the public trough and inabilities to understand just what true constitutional government consists of, to name a few (“Most gubernatorial aspirers don’t clear the liberty hurdle,” WTE, July 8).

Haynes, however, suffers from none of those flaws — and, when he says he intends to “promote Wyoming’s sovereignty and the absolute need to establish a constitutional relationship with the federal government” (www.taylorhaynesforgovernor.com), he’s not kidding.

Moreover, as I’ve discussed before (“Fedzilla’s land grabs,Parts IandParts II,” WTE, July 29 and Aug. 5, 2016), from the time of the 2nd Continental Congress’sNorthwest Ordinance (ratified in 1787, and reaffirmed by the U.S. Congress in 1789), that means all new states were to be admitted to the Union on an “equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.”

Which means: “Since the original states maintained control of their lands even after the founding (with the exceptions enumerated in the Enclave Clause), it therefore follows that any new states, once admitted to the Union, should have its previously federally managed territories turned over to it as well.” (“Part II.”)

Yet, this never happened, either here or in any other Western state — and, to this day, the federal government “manages” 48.4 percent of Wyoming.

This has been Wyoming’s biggest problem since the beginning — and, as Haynes puts it, this is an issue of “federal interference in our individual liberty, in our schools and in managing our natural resources … They control those resources and our mineral wealth.” (“Taylor Haynes interview,” July 9.)

And the implications? ““Let’s say I come into your business and take over half of it,” Haynes said. “I take half of your income and half of your wealth. And then I also restrict what you can do in your own yard. So, if I do that, how free are you?”

How free, indeed? Not very free at all … And yet, of all the candidates running, Haynes is the only one who recognizes these facts and seeks to correct them.

“I’m not against the federal government, per se,” Haynes stressed. “But they need to respect the bright line of jurisdiction that’s strong in the Constitution — and they need to act only on their enumerated powers.”

Regarding the rest of his Republican competitors, however, Haynes continued, “when it comes to the test of enforcing the Constitution, the other candidates back down. They back down on the 2nd Amendment at the University of Wyoming, and they all express that they will not take over management of the federal lands.”

“Hageman claims to differ in that respect,” I said.

“Well, she doesn’t,” Haynes replied. “She wants to ask for permission to manage a million acres. So, I’m running your company and I’ve taken over 48.4 percent of it. And then you come to me, hat in hand, to ask for permission to manage 1 percent of your own company? Really?”

And that, said Haynes, is what brought him to decide to run again for the seat he ran for back in both 2010 and 2014: “I feel like I’m trapped and I had to run one more time, because of that — because there’s nobody else in this race who’s truly constitutional whatsoever.”

And, it bears mentioning, Haynes had a quite respectable showing back in 2014:He earned 31,532 votes to Matt Mead’s 53,673— and that was against an incumbent Governor, and a fairly popular one at that, even with contender Cindy Hill splitting the “hard” conservative vote (she cleared 12,464).

Well, it’s a safe bet that the people who voted for Haynes back then will vote for him again — and, with little more than statist political hacks standing in his way this time, Haynes is well-poised to clear the votes he needs to put Wyoming on the path to the sovereignty and prosperity she deserves.

And, Dear Readers, as I survey the mess the “establishment” has made of Wyoming over the years, it’s also something she NEEDS — and now more than ever.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email: bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

Share this:

Like this:

“If destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide.” — Abraham Lincoln, “Lyceum Address,” 1838 —

As we all know, 2018 is an election year — and there’s not a single local race running, from a liberty standpoint, that’s more important than who’s going to run the State of Wyoming for the next four years.

So let’s take a look, from that liberty standpoint, at who we’ve got to pick from:

Well, as I’ve discussed before, I NEVER recommend voting for a Democrat, under any circumstances, as their pro-government, anti-property-rights agendas are simply too highly destructive to our freedoms. So: Sorry, Mr. Castner, Mr. Green, Ms. Throne and Mr. Wilde, but you’re all off the Liberty List.

Now, then, let’s take a look at the Republicans, and find out whether or not any of them live up to THEIR names. Understand that these points are not to detract from any positive aspects to these individuals, and they all have more than a few.

From the standpoint of advocating a maximum of individual liberty and the absolutism of private property rights, however, I consider all the following points as complete killers:

Bill Dahlin: According to his website at www.dahlinforgovernor.com, Dahlin supports Medicare and Social Security, has no interest in freeing up federally-“owned” lands in Wyoming and also believes that government should “protect our energy and mineral sectors at times” — i.e., non-market protectionism and statist interventionism.

Foster Friess: Recently, Friess was interviewed by Glenn Woods on KGAB 650 AM, and I about dropped my teeth when I heard him say that the federal government should just “write a check to the Governor of Wyoming” for its Medicaid expansion — and that, worse still, this is a “10th Amendment” issue. (!!) (“Foster Friess, Candidate for Wyoming Governor,” KGAB 650AM radio,www.kgab.com).

Sorry, Mr. Friess, but that’s not what the 10th Amendment says at all … And, in case you haven’t noticed, the Feds are now$133 trillion in the hole. Next?

Sam Galeotos: Here we have an allegedly “conservative” businessman who’s flooding the media with his “business” credentials, but who spent nearly a year (July, 2017 – March, 2018) asPresident of the Board of Directors of Cheyenne’s Downtown Development Authority, wasting both time and taxpayer money doing all the anti-business things the DDA is famous for — hardly anything I’d be bragging about, but that’s just me.

Nor does his work experience speak well of his “conservatism” either, as he’s currently the Executive Chairman of the Board of Directors of Greenhouse Data here in Cheyenne … And Greenhouse Data, through the Laramie County Commission, has been slurping at the public trough to the tune of:$413,131 (2011);$534,294 (2012);$552,565 (2013);$661,289 (2014); $838,711 (2015); and$750,000 (2016). Galeotos has been on Greenhouse Data’s board since 2014 and was promoted to Chairman in 2016.

Mark Gordon: Favored considerably in this race, Gordon qualifies as the “Establishment” candidate, and is doing his best to convince Wyoming voters of his “conservative” credentials as well.

Harriet Hageman: Hageman probably comes closer than nearly all of the candidates to actually being an advocate of properly-limited government in several respects. Her solution to funding Wyoming’s infrastructure needs, however, by means of “federal block grants” (“Gubernatorial candidates talk economic diversification,” WTE, June 12), wipes all of that out, and then some. Again, Ms. Hageman: The Feds are BROKE, and have been for decades.

So … Sorry, gang, but not a one of you managed to make it to the Liberty List.

Which leaves Taylor Haynes. And that man, Dear Readers, deserves a column all by himself. Which you can expect next week!

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email: bradhgt1776@gmail.com.

For anyone who might think that our freedoms to produce, trade and keep the products are efforts are alive and well here in the United States, you haven’t been paying attention:

“Denver police shut down a lemonade stand put on by a group of brothers over a permitting issue … When Jennifer Knowles helped her sons set up their first lemonade stand over the weekend, she thought it would be a lesson in entrepreneurship and charity.” (“Child’s lemonade stand shut down for lack of permit,” Channel 4 CBS Denver News, May 29,www.denver.cbslocal.com.)

An admirable goal, no doubt — but it “turns out you need a permit to operate a lemonade stand in Denver … The city says it’s about health and safety, but in the Knowles’ case, competition may also be in play.”

What, some OTHER kids’ stand next door? Not quite: “The Knowles set up right next to the Denver Arts Festival, where there was a lemonade vendor … The family sold lemonade 2 for $1, while, she says, the vendor sold it for $7 a glass.”

Oops! Well, we sure can’t have any punk kids undercutting the bureaucratically “approved” competition, now can we?

“In hindsight,” Knowles said, “we would have never set up where we did, when we did, and we would have just done it another time. Lesson learned.”

Except, Ms. Knowles, you’ve learned the wrong lesson: Instead of caving in to the Lemonade Gestapo, you needed to have resisted their encroachments upon your liberties! Up to, and including, the possibility of having you and your boys being arrested in order to bring attention to such a bogus infringement upon our alleged “American” right to peacefully produce in any fashion we see fit.

Now, I realize, Ms. Knowles, that not all of us citizens are as “gung-ho” on civil disobedience in the face of such stupid laws as I am, and I’m not necessarily saying that such a move would have been practicable in your particular case … Although a picture of your kids being placed in handcuffs for daring to operate a non-city-approved lemonade stand would certainly have given the rest of the citizenry a picture of the true situation, would it have not?

I AM saying, however, that to simply give in and walk away is to grant the Denver bureaucrats the right to control your non-aggressive activities. Why should YOU be retreating while the bureaucrats, armed with their silly little permits, win the day?

On a free market, if the “competition” can’t handle being competed against, the price-gougers lose and go out of business, while consumers gain through lower prices. Which is exactly the fashion in which this country got built in the first place, isn’t it?

From the attempts of the “mercantilists” back in Colonial times onward, so-called “free-marketers” have always been expert at getting special legislation passed in order to throttle those would undercut their inefficiencies.

Legislation, I might add, that is not possible in a truly free market — for, in such a capitalistic social system, the executive powers act solely to protect life, liberty and property from aggression and they have no legal ability to engage in such blatant social engineering schemes.

As for the claims on the part of Denver’s bureaucrats regarding “health and safety,” that’s nothing more than a smokescreen for establishing near-omnipotent power and control over all our lives. After all, wouldn’t our “health and safety” demand that we not ride four-wheelers on steep hills? Or that we not engage in hang-gliding, or horse racing, or bungee-jumping, or rock climbing, or greasy-cheeseburger-eating, or a million other activities?

Once we grant the bureaucrats the “right” to control us in order to protect us from ourselves, where does it end? The only place it CAN end: With the government manipulating every little minute aspect of our lives, all for “our own good” and our “health and safety” of course … While our individual rights to do whatever we peacefully please disappear into the bit bucket because we’re all apparently just too stupid to be able to handle anything as explosive as individual freedom.

So, Dear Readers, if any of you would like to fight this kind of lemonade-permitting nonsense, I’d suggest fighting the idea that it’s based on: That ANY of us owe ANY explanations to ANYONE for our peaceful, non-aggressive behaviors. It’s called “liberty,” and you’ll never keep it if you aren’t willing to also give it away.

Bradley Harrington is a computer technician and a writer who lives in Cheyenne. Email: bradhgt1776@gmail.com.